predictors of faculty diversification in journalism …...journalism and mass communication at the...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education By Lee B. Becker ([email protected]) Tudor Vlad ([email protected]) Oana Stefanita ([email protected]) James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Communication Training And Research Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 Oana Stefanita, a doctoral student in the National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania, was a Fulbright Scholar in the Cox International Center when this paper was written. Presented to the Minorities and Communication Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered between 1999 and 2013, this paper provides up-to-date information on
faculty diversity in journalism and mass communication education. It examines the predictive
power of four key institutional characteristics in producing diversification: accreditation status,
type of control of the institution, type of mission, and region of the country. It shows
diversification is increasing, but progress, particularly in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, is
slow.
![Page 2: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
1
The argument that faculties in a given field of higher education should reflect the
diversity of the general population is based on notions of equity of access to those positions and
the belief that faculty diversity serves the needs of the overall population. If entry to the
occupations of the institutions of higher education is without barriers, all members of the society
being served should be able to enter those occupations, and, across time, the occupations should
be as diverse as the larger community. Since most occupations are expected to have impact on
those served by them, society for a variety of reasons should want occupations to reflect the
characteristics of society itself.
Since the academic field of journalism and mass communication education plays an
important role in training and educating persons in the key communication occupations of
journalism, public relations, advertising and ancillary fields, the characteristics of its faculty is
particularly important (Becker & Vlad, 2009; Becker et al., 2010). Journalists select topics and
create frames for those topics that have impact on what people talk about and how they see those
issues (Cobb & Elder, 1971; Goffman, 1974; Entman, 1993). Public relations practitioners
similarly impact the news, the social media landscape and the overall civic life of a community
(Park & Reber, 2011). Advertising images and messages can have significant impact on a society
(Berger, 2011).
Despite the importance of the issue of faculty diversity in journalism and mass
communication education, relatively little is known about how the field is performing in terms of
diversification and how closely it is to matching the society it serves. The most recent reports on
faculty characteristics on two key characteristics, racial and ethnic diversity and gender diversity,
are now quite dated (Becker et al., 2003; Becker & Vlad, 2009).
This paper provides more up-to-date data on faculty diversity in the field of journalism
![Page 3: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
2
and mass communication education. It also examines the predictive power of four key
institutional characteristics in producing diversification: accreditation status, type of control of
the institution, type of mission of the institutions, and region of the country. It shows
diversification is increasing, but progress, particularly in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, is
slow, and few of the predictor variable account for the change.
Literature Review
In spite of initiatives designed to increase racial and ethnic diversity, faculties
representing minorities have continued to be underrepresented in U.S. universities (Harvey &
Anderson, 2005). The efforts to diversify the faculty started after the Second World War, but still
in the 1970s over 90 percent of the professors were white and 80 percent were male, with the
only exception being the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Metzger, 1987).
Statements by college and university administrators emphasize the positive effects of minority
faculty on higher education, such as enabling recruitment of minority students, increasing the
areas of scholarship (Antonio, 2002), and exposing the students to a broader range of ideas
(Umbach, 2006). In 2005, however, only 9.9 percent of the higher education faculty in the
United States were underrepresented minorities (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Even in
the fall of 2011, of those full-time instructional faculty whose race/ethnicity was known, 79
percent were white (44 percent white males and 35 percent white females), 6 percent were black,
4 percent were Hispanic, and less than 1 percent were American Indians/Alaska natives or two or
more races (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
The affirmative-action plans dating since the early 1970s aimed at increasing the number
of minority and women faculty and protect individual rights. These included examination of
policies to eliminate discriminatory practices and recruitment standards, policies that might
![Page 4: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
3
adversely impact women and minorities, race or sex based selectivity, and establishment of goals
that are consistent with nondiscrimination principles (AAUP Policy Documents & Reports,
2001). The emergence of anti-affirmative action sentiment, however, has changed the
environment in which universities operate, although they still have to comply with federal
affirmative action laws that stipulate an affirmative outreach (Muñiz, 2012). In addition,
governmental regulations are considered to limit the goal of universities to develop an
individualized profile and therefore, they might decrease diversity (Meek, 2000). At the same
time, increased competition, a decreased governmental control or a wide variety of institutional
strategies do not lead to a high level of diversity (Morphew, 2009).
Among the explanations of the slowness of the diversifying process is the low number of
minority graduate students (Moody, 2004; Smith, et. al, 2004). There are also some differences
among minority degrees granted by university type. Data from a survey on higher education
degrees awarded to minority members from 1988-89 to 1992-1993 show that African-American
degrees granted increased in secular public institutions, while Asian-American degrees granted
increased in both public and private colleges and universities. While fewer African-American
and Hispanic students graduated from Research I institutions than from Master’s I and Associate
of Arts, more Asian Americans graduated from Research I institutions (Borden, 1996).
Minorities are underrepresented in postsecondary education, which restricts the applicant
pool for faculty positions and affects their upward mobility (Gasman, Abiola, & Travers, 2015).
For example, African-Americans earned only 20.4 percent and 20.5 percent respectively of the
master’s and doctoral degrees awarded in U.S. in 2012, Hispanics 5.2 percent and 4.4 percent,
Asian Americans 5.3 percent and 9.4 percent, whereas whites earned 56.8 percent, and 59.9
percent (Kim, 2013). The proportion of minority faculty is lower than their representation among
![Page 5: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
4
graduates, even in periods of growth in faculty hiring (Washington & Harvey, 1989).
The pipeline problem might not always be the most important factor, as, for example,
survey findings among Ph.D. recipients between 1996– 2005 showed that the number of
minority in the doctoral pool was much higher than the number of minority assistant professors
in most disciplines (Nelson et. al., 2007). The difficulty adapting to an unfamiliar work
environment and some forms of discrimination in recruitment and tenure process also have been
documented as causes to the low number of minority faculty (Turner & Myers, 2000; Perna,
2001). Black faculty members are present in minority serving institutions such as HBCUs but are
underrepresented in other universities (Smith, Tovar, & García, 2012). This situation sometimes
negatively affects students’ attitudes and behavior, as those who are not exposed to and interact
with racially diverse people tend to disregard authority when faculty members are perceived as
different from themselves (Jayakumar, 2008).
If data indicate that minorities are underrepresented at graduate levels, however, the
explanation does not hold for women. For example, in 2000, women earned more than half of the
bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees at the national level, although their status and rank in
the academia is lower when compared to men. Furthermore, women and minorities are more
likely to work at less prestigious universities and have lower salaries, while white men occupy
the majority of the positions in prestigious institutions, at the senior ranks level, tenured status
and full-time employment (Trower & Chait, 2002). Besides race and ethnic bias, women have to
negotiate their place in the academia to maintain authority, credibility and discipline to receive
positive evaluations. African-American women faculty are sometimes described as
marginalized, while Asian women are sometimes perceived as having less authority than their
white counterparts (Aguirre, 2000; Fong, 2007). Moreover, student evaluations for diverse
![Page 6: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
5
women faculty’s teaching are often negative, their performance being considered marginal and
having an adverse impact when it comes to receiving tenure or promotions (Han, 2011).
Performance expectations become more positive as the proportion of women increases and less
attention is paid to gender (Valian, 1998).
Recruiting and admitting a diverse student and faculty body help students achieve
important education goals and enrich their educational experience (American Council on
Education & American Association of University Professors, 2000). Furthermore, content related
to diversity and racially and ethnically diverse issues helps in the development of an increased
critical thinking capacity and cross-cultural learning (Gudeman, 2000; Marin, 2000). African-
American faculty are considered to provide support, mentoring and role models for minority
students, and ensure a multi-faceted learning environment and exposure to diverse ideas
(Umbach, 2006; Antonio, 2002). Diversity in higher education influences productivity, helps
develop intellectual personality, fosters creativity, enhances the richness of teaching and research
environments, ensures the basis of a dynamic community, and creates respect for other’s
cultures. According to some educators, diversity should be taken into account in every aspect of
education to ensure effectiveness in pluralistic societies and to help students embody the
awareness of diversity (Lumby & Coleman, 2007).
As a negative factor, increasing diversity might contribute to a less cohesive
environment, inefficient communication, anxiety or discomfort for students or staff (Fine &
Handelsman, 2010). In order to achieve the advantages of a diverse racial and ethnic context, a
variety of factors have to be taken into account, such as the characteristics of faculty members,
curricula, teaching methods, interaction and classroom climate (Marin, 2000). Campus
communities should be enabled to have access to an inclusive learning and working
![Page 7: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
6
environment, and chief diversity officer positions in universities can expand representation of a
diverse higher education environment (Worthington, Stanley & Lewis Sr., 2014). In the past
decades, universities have included in their goals and mission the diversification of students and
faculty in higher education, trying to assess and improve the campus climate for diversity
(Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008; Worthington, 2008). Higher education institutions should
increase the efforts in diversifying their faculty and students pools and create policies so that to
avoid exclusion and inequity based on gender, race and ethnicity (Iverson, 2007). If universities
are to be successful in an interconnected world, they need better ways to communicate and
integrate diversity, and they have to increase the exposure, interactions and, consequently, the
ability to work with individuals from different cultures and populations (Wilson, 2013).
An efficient strategy to recruit underrepresented categories is the “special hire
intervention”–a process through which regular searching procedures are eluded, and it is often
combined with the use of diversity indicators in describing the position. It can also include a
waiver in terms of certain searching criteria, targets or spousal hire. Almost half of African-
American and American Indian have occupied a faculty position as special hires (Smith, Turner,
Osei-Kofi & Richards, 2004). This strategy is usually described by such terms as “exceptional
hires,” “search waivers,” “truncated search process,” and “out-of-cycle hiring.” These have
proven to be useful tools in targeting specific applicants and increasing the diversity level among
faculty members (Smith, 2011). Diversification of higher education faculty requires a sustained
effort and strategic interventions.
Diversity levels might differ according to programs, regions, and type of universities. In
this regard, a surveys conducted from 1989 to 2005 (Subervi & Cantrell, 2007; Ross et. all,
2007) among accredited and non-accredited Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and
![Page 8: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
7
Mass Communications programs reveal that accredited units make more efforts in recruiting,
retaining and promoting minority faculty and therefore, these have enhanced levels of faculty
diversity. Diversity levels are higher among accredited programs as these unites are evaluated
based on standards that target aspects as budget, administration, alumni activities and diversity
levels. Accredited programs are also significantly more diversified in terms of the enrolled
students. This is significant since, as another survey conducted in 2009 shows, universities with a
higher proportion of minority students attract minority faculty at a double rate than those where
these students are underrepresented (Sabharwal & Geva-May, 2013). The low number of non-
white students earning doctorates, however, makes it more difficult to diversify faculty because
of insufficient diversity in the labor force pool.
Moreover, demographics can play a role in determining the ratio of minority faculty. In
states with larger minority population, minority students and faculty members can be found in a
greater number (Subervi & Cantrell, 2007). Geographic regions can be a characteristic that
determines differences in the distribution of faculty by racial or ethnic aspects. An analysis based
upon the 1992-1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty reveals that blacks are more likely
to work in the Southeast and Southwest, while Hispanic and Asian faculty are more likely to
work in the far western and the southwestern regions of U.S. (Nettles, Perna, Bradburn &
Zimbler, 2000).
A study of top 28 liberal arts colleges, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report,
showed that both the public and the private schools in the country included diversity in their
mission statements. The nine goals most often included in the mission statements of these
colleges are (in order of frequency of mention): (1) the acquisition of intellectual mastery and
rigor; (2) learning to value service to community; (3) learning perspectives from diversity; (4)
![Page 9: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
8
developing self-knowledge and growing personally; (5) developing and nurturing a liberated,
creative mind; (6) gaining an increased capacity for tolerance, respect, and concern for others;
(7) acquiring the skills and motivation for social leadership; (8) developing ethical and moral
judgment; and (9) fostering creativity and imagination (American Council of Education, 2000).
An experiment was conducted on the top 259 universities in the U.S. as ranked by U.S.
News and World Report in 2010 (Milkman, Akinola & Cugh, 2011). Thirty-seven percent of the
universities in the sample were private, and 63 percent were public. From these universities,
6,300 doctoral programs and 200,000 faculty affiliated with those programs were identified.
Then, one to two faculty from each doctoral program were selected, yielding 6,548 faculty
subjects. The final sample of faculty included was composed of 43 percent full professors, 27
percent associate professors, 25 percent associate professors, and 5 percent professors who were
either emeritus or of unknown rank. In total, 6,548 emails were sent to the faculty from fictional
prospective doctoral students seeking a meeting to discuss research opportunities to faculty, or
one per professor included in this study. Names of students were randomly assigned to signal
gender and race (Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Chinese), but messages were otherwise
identical. Faculty ignored requests from women and minorities at a higher rate than requests
from White males, indicating that bias exists in business, education, human services, engineering
and computer sciences, life sciences, and the natural/physical sciences and math. Furthermore,
bias against women and minorities was worse in higher-paying disciplines and at private
institutions, but uncorrelated with the representation of women or minorities in a discipline or
university.
Faculty diversification in the field of journalism and mass communication education has
been slow, following the general academic pattern. A study that examined the characteristics of
![Page 10: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
9
faculty in journalism and mass communication from 1989 to 1998 showed that the change was
so slight that it would be about year 2035 before the faculty looked like students then enrolled in
journalism and mass communication programs in terms of gender and race/ethnicity (Becker,
Huh & Vlad, 2001). An update to that report found that just fewer than three in 10 of the full-
time journalism and mass communication faculty members were women, in 1989, while in 2001
the ratio was just fewer than four in 10. Faculty who were members of racial or ethnic minority
groups and female faculty continued to be concentrated at the lower academic ranks, where they
have less job security and less influence on curricula development and faculty governance
(Becker et al., 2003). Based on a survey of ASJMC schools 2006-2007, the estimates were that
the number of African-Americans faculty would be about 300, the number of Hispanics would
be about 90, the number of Native Americans would be about 25, the number of Asian-
Americans would be about 110, and the number of Americans from the Pacific Islands would be
about 15, while women would make up 1,640 of the 3,570 faculty members (Becker & Vlad,
2009).
This increase in women and minority faculty does not match the growth in the number of
journalism and mass communication students with those characteristics. In the fall of 2012,
students classified as members of racial and ethnic minorities made up 33.7 percent of the
students enrolled in journalism and mass communication programs in the United States, the
highest figure ever recorded. In the same year, women represented two-thirds of the total number
of students (Becker, Vlad, & Simpson, 2013).
In 2010-2011, 82 universities around the country reported granting 671 doctoral degrees
that were classified in the communication categories. Women dominate the field, earning 64.4
percent of the doctoral degrees conferred in communications. This figure is the highest ever
![Page 11: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
10
recorded. Among domestic graduates of these doctoral programs, members of racial and ethnic
minorities were few: Only 7.6 percent of the degrees granted went to African-Americans, and 3.3
percent went to Hispanics, while Asian Pacific Islanders earned 3.5 percent of the doctoral
degrees (Becker et al., 2012).
Hypotheses
This paper focuses on the power of four variables to produce and predict to
diversification in terms of race/ethnicity and gender: accreditation, control (private vs. public),
type of institution (Carnegie classification) and region of the country.
One of the ACEJMC accrediting standards is Diversity and Inclusiveness. An indicator of
this standard is: The unit demonstrates effective efforts to recruit women and domestic minority
faculty and professional staff and, where feasible, recruits international faculty and professional
staff (ACEJMC, 2012).
Four hypotheses are tested in this paper:
H1. Accreditation should lead across time to increased diversification.
H2. Public institutions should become more diverse across time, while change at private
institutions should be at lower levels.
H3. Research universities should have a harder time diversifying across time because of the
weakness of the pool (narrowness of the funnel) for doctoral programs.
H4. The south should lag in terms of diversification, given its past history, and that the northeast
should lead.
Methodology
The Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass communication made available for
analysis data from the Annual Faculty Salary Survey for 15 years, from 1999 to 2013. ASJMC
![Page 12: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
11
members do not represent the overall field of journalism and mass communication education, but
it is an identifiable part of that field. As the most recent ASJMC Salary Report shows (Becker &
Vlad, 2015), ASJMC programs are large and have a stronger historical tie to journalism than do
journalism and mass communication programs overall.
Because the data are not a probability sample, no statistical tests are used in the analyses
that follow. Rather, the analysis focuses on patterns of change across time that are consistent
with the stated hypotheses.
The survey instrument used for the Faculty Salary Survey was similar throughout the
analyzed period, from 1999 to 2014 (Becker & Vlad, 2015). The instrument identification codes
were standardized to allow a linkage with the characteristics of the program measured in the
Annual Survey of Journalism & Mass Communication Enrollments, which provides data on
journalism and mass communication education (Becker, Vlad & Simpson, 2013).
The salary survey document includes two forms. Form 1 asked about budgets for faculty
salaries. A second form (Form 2) asked for individual faculty salaries in spreadsheet format.
Form 2 asked administrators, for each faculty line, to indicate annual salary, appointment period,
salary increase (from the previous year), major field of interest (of the faculty member), and
various demographic characteristics of the faculty member, including race/ethnicity and gender.
The salary survey instrument (consisting of Form 1 and Form 2) was mailed each year to
the domestic ASJMC members. The forms were provided both in print and electronic versions.
In the most recent years, the correspondence told administrators it also was possible to complete
Form 1 and Form 2 online. Follow-up mailings were sent three times to nonresponding ASJMC
members. Some ASJMC members indicated during this process that they did not wish to provide
data for the ASJMC survey. Administrators of ASJMC programs who did not respond to these
![Page 13: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
12
four requests were sent multiple email prompts after the fourth mailing–unless they had indicated
an unwillingness to participate, in an effort to obtain data from as many ASJMC members as
possible. The return rates of the forms providing data on the budget of the unit (Form 1) and on
individual faculty salary data (Form 2) are shown in Appendix 1.
The data for this paper come from Form 2. Administrators were asked to classify their
faculty members in terms of racial and ethnic diversity using the following categories: African-
American not Hispanic, African-American Hispanic, Hispanic not African-American, Native
American, Asian American, Pacific Islander American, White not Hispanic, Other, and Not
American Citizen. Faculty were classified by gender as well.
Data from the Annual Survey of Journalism & Mass Communication Enrollments were
used to classify the ASJMC programs in terms of accreditation by the Accrediting Council on
Journalism and Mass Communication Education, control, type of institution, and region of the
country. Control was taken from the Carnegie Foundation data file. Regions of the country also
were taken from the Annual Survey of Journalism & Mass Communication Enrollments:
Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. These data from the Annual Survey of Journalism and
Mass Communication Enrollments were incorporated into the file made available by ASJMC for
analysis.
Universities can be classified in many different ways to reflect their different missions.
This study employs a single measure of university type, namely the Basic Classification scheme
of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Carnegie classification
scheme. The Basic Classification is an update of the classification framework developed by the
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 1970 and released in 1973 for use by others. The
2010 Carnegie scheme classifies colleges and universities based on degrees granted, research
![Page 14: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
13
activity and mission. These are: Research Universities (Very High Research Activity), Research
Universities (High Research Activity), Doctoral/Research Universities, Master's Colleges and
Universities (Larger Programs), Master's Colleges and Universities (Medium Programs),
Master's Colleges and Universities (Smaller Programs), Baccalaureate Colleges--Arts &
Sciences, Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields, Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges, Special
Focus Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. For the purposes of this report, the Carnegie 2010
scheme has been collapsed to three categories: (1) Research Universities Very High Research
Activity, (2) Research Universities High Research Activity and Doctoral/Research Universities,
and (3) Master’s Colleges & Universities and Baccalaureate Colleges.
The return rates for individual faculty salary data for each category as well as for
programs that were accredited by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass
Communications and nonaccredited programs, from public and private institutions can be seen in
Appendix 1. The data available for analysis, in sum, come from a subset of ASJMC programs
and are biased in favor of Research and Doctoral Universities, programs accredited by the
Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications, and programs at
public institutions.
Findings
The data available from the ASJMC Faculty Salary Survey are not a census. As the
Appendix shows, return rates vary by year, with some schools explicitly refusing to participate
and others simply not returning either one or both of the forms that make up the survey. An
analysis of the characteristics of the data based on the four independent variables, accreditation,
control, type of university and region, shows deviations in sample based on these characteristics
year-to-year. One strategy to deal with this would be to create a weight for each case that would
![Page 15: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
14
standardize responses in a given year to the average on these four characteristics across the 15
years of available data. That turned out not to be possible, as some of the cells in a given year
were missing, meaning there were no cases to use in the weighting. As a consequence, the
strategy was to test the hypotheses in terms of the bivariate relationships predicted in each of the
four hypotheses. Multivariate analyses would follow as appropriate.
Racial/ethnic diversity and gender diversity are two prominent indicators of diversity of
faculty, but they are not the only ones that might be used. They also are not identical. These were
the only diversity measures available from the ASJMC data file. The data analysis that follows
focuses first on one of these measures–racial and ethnic diversity–and then on the other–gender
diversity.
Chart 1 shows the initial trends in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. In 1999, persons
who were classified in the U.S. system as racial or ethnic minorities made up 14.7 percent of the
faculty, while in 2013, faculty classified as racial or ethnic minorities made up 21.3 percent. The
top line in the chart shows the mirror image, as it shows the percent of the sample across the 15
years classified as White, not Hispanic. The classification of minorities includes those who were
U.S. citizens, and that number increased by 2.1 percent. The largest increase was in Asian
Americans, from 1.8 percent to 4.7 percent, as shown more clearly in Chart 1A. The percentage
of faculty who were African American and the percentage of faculty who were Hispanic
increased very little over the 15-year period. In 2013, the journalism and mass communication
faculty under-represented African Americans, who made up 11.8 percent of the civilian,
noninstitutional population 25 years old or older and 11.8 percent of the civilian labor force 25
years old or older. Also under-represented were Hispanics, who made up 14.2 percent of the
civilian, noninstitutional population 25 years old or older and 15.2 percent of the labor force 25
![Page 16: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
15
years old or older. The faculty came close to representing Asian Americans, who made up 5.4
percent of the civilian, noninstitutional population 25 years old or older and 5.8 percent of the
labor force 25 years old or older. In the U.S. population, White, non-Hispanics made up 80.0
percent of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population in 2013 and 79.7 percent of the labor
force 25 years old or older. The journalism and mass communication faculty actually under-
represented just slightly this group (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).
Hypothesis 1 predicts that accreditation will lead to increased diversification. In Chart 2
(and in Charts 3-5) only faculty classified as White, non-Hispanic are shown. Chart 2 provides
no evidence that accreditation by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication made any difference in the 1999 to 2013 period. This is not to say that
accreditation made no difference. In every year but one (2007), the faculty at programs that were
accredited were more diverse than the faculty at programs that were not accredited. But both
types of faculty have changed over time, and the gap between them is not markedly different in
2013 compared with 1999. The data shown in the table are not at the program level, but they
lump all accredited programs together and all nonaccredited programs together. So it is possible
that institutional change is masked by this averaging across types of programs.
Chart 3 shows no support for the expectation that public institutions will have more
success in diversification than private ones. From 2003 to 2013, in fact, private institutions have
shown more success in diversification than have public ones. In 1999, public institutions were
more diverse (4 percentage points gap in favor of public institutions) than private institutions, but
in 2013, private institutions were nearly 5 percentage points more diverse than public ones.
Chart 4 shows little evidence to support the expectation that research universities, as
referenced by Carnegie classification, were any less likely to diversify their faculty than other
![Page 17: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
16
institutions. Movement across the types of institutions has been roughly the same across the
years.
While region does make a difference in terms of diversification, the effect is not the one
predicted. Southern schools were more diverse in 1999 in terms of race and ethnicity of their
faculty, and that difference has persisted across time. Institutions in the west have changed the
most, with 87.3 percent of the faculty in 1999 classified as racial or ethnic minorities, and 74.0
percent so classified in 2013. The other regions changed roughly the same amount during this
time period.
Chart 6 shows that journalism and mass communication faculties have become more
balanced in terms of gender, i.e., more diverse, across time. In 1999, 34.8 percent of the faculty
in the ASJMC Faculty Salary Survey were women, while that figure had increased to 45.3
percent in 2013. The U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population of persons 25 years old or
older in 2013 was 52.1 percent female, but the civilian labor force aged 25 years and older was
46.6 percent female, or just slightly higher than for journalism and mass communication faculty
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).
In Chart 7 and in subsequent charts, only men are shown, to keep the charts parallel to
Charts 2 through 5. Chart 7 shows no evidence that accreditation made any difference during this
time period in increasing diversity of the journalism and mass communication faculty. A small
gap exists between accredited and nonaccredited programs, with the former having a just slightly
higher percentage of men, that is, being less diverse, contrary to the expectation that
accreditation increases diversity. But that small gap has been consistent across most of the 15
years analyzed.
Type of control clearly has no impact on the diversification of journalism and mass
![Page 18: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
17
communication faculties in terms of gender. Faculties at private and public institutions moved in
tandem across the period from 1999 to 2013 in terms of increased female representation, as
shown in Chart 8.
Similarly, type of institution, as reflected in the Carnegie classification, had no consistent
impact on gender diversification. Faculties at research universities and at liberal arts institutions
became more balanced in terms of gender across time (Chart 9). Men made up a higher
percentage of the faculties at Research 1/Very High Research Activity universities in 2013 than
at either of the other types of institutions. The gap is not trivial, but it also has not been
consistent across the years. In 2008, for example, there was no evidence of a gap at all. It is true
that these research faculties have shown little change in recent years, and this is worthy of
monitoring.
Region of the country also plays no consistent role across time in producing diversity in
journalism and mass communication faculties in terms of gender. As was the case with racial
diversity (Chart 5), the northeastern part of the country has consistently shown less
representation of gender diversity than other parts of the country. The Midwest and South have
shown the greatest change, though change has been pronounced in the West as well. Clearly the
expectation stated in the fourth hypothesis is not correct. The south is not the most resistant
section of the country in terms of diversification.
Conclusions
The academic field of journalism and mass communication education plays an important
role in training and educating persons in key communication occupations, and it should reflect
the diversity of the general population to better serve the population’s needs. This paper provides
data on faculty diversity in the field of journalism and mass communication education between
![Page 19: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
18
1999 and 2013, gathered through the ASJMC Annual Faculty Salary Survey, and examines the
predictive power of four key institutional characteristics in producing diversification:
accreditation status, type of control of the institution (private vs. public), type of mission of the
institutions (Carnegie classification), and region of the country. Although diversification has
increased, progress in terms of racial and ethnic diversity is slow, and few of the predictor
variables account for the change. In spite of initiatives designed to increase racial and ethnic
diversity, faculties representing minorities have continued to be underrepresented in U.S.
universities.
Racial/ethnic diversity and gender diversity are two prominent indicators of diversity of
faculty reflected in the data analysis. The paper focuses first on racial and ethnic diversity, and
then on gender diversity testing if accreditation leads across time to increased diversification, if
public institutions become more diverse across time, while change at private institutions registers
lower levels, if research universities have a harder time diversifying across time because of the
weakness of the pool for doctoral programs, and if in terms of region, the south has lower
diversity levels due to past history while the northeast account for more of the change.
In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, whites, non-Hispanic remained the predominant group
across years, while the percentage of African American and Hispanic faculty increased very little
over the 15-year period. The largest increase was in Asian Americans and, compared to the US
population, the faculty came close to representing this group. Diversity has increased in both
accredited and non-accredited programs, and the gap between them is not markedly different in
2013 compared with 1999 as the faculty at programs that were accredited were more diverse
across time than the faculty at programs that were not accredited. No evidence has been shown
![Page 20: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
19
for the expectation that public institutions would have more success in diversification than
private ones.
Change in diversity also has been roughly the same across the years in different types of
institutions, and data showed little evidence to support the expectation that research universities
are less likely to diversify their faculty than other institutions. While region makes a difference
regarding diversity levels, the trend is not the same as the one predicted. Even though change has
been present in all the regions, Southern universities have reached a higher diversity level across
time than others.
In terms of gender, journalism and mass communication faculties have become more
balanced, as the number of women faculty has constantly increased over the years.
Nonaccredited programs have just a slightly higher percentage of men, however, contrary to the
expectation that accreditation increases diversity. Even though diversity has increased in both
public and private journalism and mass communication programs, the type of control has no
impact on the diversification in terms of gender. The differences among types of universities
have not been consistent across the years. Although research universities and liberal arts
institutions have become more balanced, men are still better represented in Research I
universities. Region of the country also plays no consistent role in producing diversity, though
the Midwest and South have shown the greatest change compared to other regions.
These analyses have not identified the predictors of the change in diversification of the
faculty. The suggestion is that the diversification of journalism and mass communication
faculties is simply a reflection of changes in the broader society. This study has some limitations:
As mentioned before, it does not reflect the entire field of journalism and mass communication
higher education. The data come from a subset of ASJMC programs and are biased in favor of
![Page 21: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
20
Research and Doctoral Universities, programs accredited by the Accrediting Council on
Education in Journalism and Mass Communications, and programs at public institutions. In
addition, the data do not allow an examination of the impact of the variability in strategic
diversification initiatives at the studied universities. Clearly, the environment in which
universities operate has changed over the years and diversity has increased both in terms of
race/ethnicity and gender. Even though White non-Hispanic males are still the majority group
and the progress is slow, the representation of minorities and women in journalism and mass
communication programs in U.S. has increased across time. Sustained effort and strategic
interventions are required to increase the level of diversification of higher education faculty and
support change.
![Page 22: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
21
References
AAUP Policy Documents & Reports (2001). Affirmative-action plans: Recommended
procedures for increasing the number of minority persons and women on college and university
faculties. (9th ed., 2001).
ACEJMC. (2012). ACEJMC accreditation standards. Retrieved on March 3, 2015, from
https://www2.ku.edu/~acejmc/PROGRAM/STANDARDS.SHTML
Aguirre, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment,
retention, and academic culture. Retrieved ON March 4, 2015, from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447752.pdf
Antonio, A. L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: reassessing contribution to scholarship.
Journal of Higher Education, 73, 582–603.
American Council of Education. (2000). Does diversity make a difference? Retrieved on March
4, 2015, from http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/97003B7B-055F-4318-B14A-
5336321FB742/0/DIVREP.PDF
![Page 23: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
22
Becker, L.B., Huh, J., & Vlad, T. (2001). Predictors of diversification of journalism & mass
communication faculties 1989-1998. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 2003, 58:
26-48.
Becker, L.B., Huh, J., Vlad, T., & Mace, N. (2003). Monitoring change in journalism and mass
communication faculties 1989-2001. Retrieved on March, 8, 2015, from
http://www.grady.uga.edu/annualsurveys/Supplemental_Reports/Faculty_Diversification_Report
-Update.pdf
Becker, L.B., & Vlad, T. (2009, Spring). ASJMC faculty diversity. Insights, 11-15.
Becker, L. B., Vlad, T., Toledo, C., Kazragis, W. and Papper, R. A. (2010, August). 2010 Survey
of Editors and News Directors. Paper presented at the conference of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in St. Louis, Missouri.
Becker, L.B., Vlad, T., Simpson, H., & Kalpen, K. (2012). Doctoral programs in communication:
Updated report for 2010-2011 graduates. Retrieved on Feb, 5, 2015, from
http://www.grady.uga.edu/annualsurveys/Doctoral_Survey/Doctoral_2011/Docrpt20102011v2.p
df
Becker, L.B., Vlad, T., & Simpson, H. (2013). 2012 Annual survey of journalism and mass
communication enrollments: Enrollments decline for second year in a row. Journalism & Mass
Communication Educator, 68(4) 305–334.
Becker, L.B., & Vlad, T. (2015). ASJMC faculty salary survey 2013-2014. ASJMC, Columbia,
SC.
Berger, A. A. (2011). Ads, fads, and consumer culture: Advertising's impact on American
![Page 24: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
23
character. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Borden, V.H. (1996). Five-year trends In minority degree production. Black Issues In Higher
Education, 11(7), 34-71.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2013.
Retrieved on March 3, 2015, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/race_ethnicity_2013.pdf]
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Women in the labor force. Retrieved on March 3, 2015, from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/womenlaborforce_2013.pdf
Carnegie Foundation. (2010). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
Retrieved on March 4, 2015, from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/descriptions/basic.php
Cobb, R.W. & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective
for modern democratic theory. Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Fine, E., & Handelsman, J (2010). Benefits and challenges of diversity in academic settings.
Retrieved on March 2, 2015 from http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/docs/Benefits_Challenges.pdf
Fong, M. (2007). The permeable and impermeable wall of expectations. Neither White nor male:
Female faculty of color. 110: 35-45.
Gasman, M., Abiola, U., & Travers, C. (2015, March). Diversity and senior leadership at elite
institutions of higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8 (1), 1-14.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge,
![Page 25: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
24
MA: Harvard University Press.
Gudeman, R. H. (2000). College missions, Faculty teaching, and student outcomes in a context
of low diversity. In Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in
college classrooms, 37-38. American Council on Education & American Association of
University Professors.
Han, K. (2012). Experiences of faculty of color teaching in a predominantly white university:
Fostering interracial relationships among faculty of color and white preservice teachers.
International Journal of Progressive Education, 8(2), 25-48.
Harvey, W. B. & Anderson, E. L. (2005). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-first annual
status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 586 – 611.
Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and
global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competences. Harvard
Educational Review, 78(4), 615-651.
Kim, Y. M. (2013). Minorities in higher education: 26th status report. Retrieved from
http://diversity .ucsc.edu/resources/images/ace_report.pdf
Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: Challenging theory and practice in
education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marin, P. (2000). College missions, faculty teaching, and student outcomes in a context of low
![Page 26: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
25
diversity. In Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college
classrooms, 37-38. American Council on Education & American Association of University
Professors.
Meek, V. L. (2000). Diversity and marketisation of higher education: Incompatible concepts?
Higher Education Policy, 13, 23–39.
Metzger, W. P. (1987). The academic profession in the United States. In B. R. Clark (ed.), The
academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Milkman, K., Akinola, M., & Cugh, D. (2011). Discrimination in the academy: A field
experiment. Retrieved on March 4, 2015, from
http://www.diversityu.org/uploads/2/5/3/4/25340863/discrimination_in_the_academy.pdf
Moody, J. (2004). Faculty diversity: Problems and solutions. New York: Routledge Press.
Morphew, C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of US Colleges and
Universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 243–269.
Muñiz, M. (2012). From affirmative action to diversity: Rationales for faculty diversification
efforts in a state anti-affirmative action regulatory environment. Retrieved from
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:rd157qm0376/Munizpercent20dissertationpercent20FINAL
percent203.15.12-augmented.pdf
Nelson, D.J., Brammer, C.M., & Rhodes, H.(2007). A national analysis of minorities in science
and engineering faculties at research universities. Diversity in Science Association and the
University of Oklahoma.
![Page 27: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
26
Nettles, M. T., Perna, L. W., Bradburn, E. M., Zimbler, L. J. (2002). 1993 National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty. Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of Minority and Women Faculty in
U.S. Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Education. National
Center for Education Statistics.
Park, H., Reber, B.H. (2011). The organization-public relationship and crisis communication:
The effect of the organization-public relationship on publics' perceptions of crisis and attitudes
toward the organization. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 240-260.
Perna, L. W. (2001). Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion. Research in
Higher Education, 42 (5), 541-567.
Ross, F. G. J., Stroman, C. A., Callahan, L. F., Dates, J. L., Egwu, C. & Whitmo, E. (2007).
Final Report of a National Study on Diversity in Journalism and Mass Communication
Education, Phase II. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 62(1), 9-26.
Sabharwal, M. & Geva-May, I. (2013). Advancing Underrepresented Populations in the Public
Sector: Approaches and Practices in the Instructional Pipeline. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 19(4), 657–679.
Smith, D. G, Turner, C., Osei-Kofi, N. & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting the usual: Successful
strategies for hiring diverse faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 75 (4), 133-160.
Smith, D. G. (2011). Identifying talent, interrupting the usual. Diversifying the faculty. (pp. 37-
38) in Stulberg, L. M. & Weinberg. S. L. (Eds.), Diversity in American Higher Education:
Toward a More Comprehensive Approach, 37-38. Routledge: New York.
Smith, D. G., Tovar, E., & García, H. A. (2012). Where are they? A multilens examination of the
distribution of full-time faculty by institutional type, race/ethnicity, gender, and citizenship. New
![Page 28: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
27
Directions for Institutional Research, 2012, 5–26.
Subervi, F & Cantrell, T. H. (2007). Assessing Efforts and Policies Related to the Recruitment
and Retention of Minority Faculty at Accredited and Non-accredited Journalism and Mass
Communication Programs. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 62(1), 27-46.
Trower, C. & Chait, R. (2002, March-April). Faculty diversity. Harvard Magazine.
Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, Jr., S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20
years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 139–168.
Umbach, P. D. (2006). The contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education. Research
in Higher Education. 47(3), 317-345.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). National Center for Education Statistics. The condition of
cducation 2014 (NCES 2014-083), Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Retrieved in March,
2, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf
Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Washington, V., & Harvey, W (1989). Affirmative rhetoric, negative action: African-American
and Hispanic faculty at predominantly white institutions. Report No. 2. Washington, DC: School
of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher
education. The Journal of Negro Education, 82 (4), 433-445.
![Page 29: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism And Mass Communication Education
28
Worthington, R. L. (2008). Measurement and assessment in campus climate research: A
scientific imperative. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 201–203.
Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C.A, Lewis Sr., W.T. (2014). National association of diversity
officers in higher education standards of professional practice for chief diversity officers.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4), 227–234.
![Page 30: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
African‐American not Hispanic 8.4% 6.8% 8.4% 7.6% 8.7% 7.8% 8.3% 8.3% 7.6% 7.7% 8.1% 7.3% 7.8% 6.9% 8.7%
African‐American Hispanic .3% .4% .4% 2.2% .1% .2% .3% .4% .4% .2% .1% .1% .2% .1% .2%
Hispanic not African‐American 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.1%
Native American .6% .7% .8% .6% .6% .6% .7% .8% .6% 1.0% 1.0% .8% .7% .9% 1.0%
Asian American 1.8% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.4% 2.6% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 4.3% 4.9% 4.7%
Pacific Islander American .3% .2% .3% .4% .6% .3% .5% .5% .6% .3% .1% .2% .4% .3% .4%
White not Hispanic 85.3% 86.1% 84.7% 83.6% 83.4% 83.6% 82.4% 81.1% 80.9% 80.8% 80.5% 81.1% 79.6% 80.1% 78.7%
Other .5% .6% .7% .7% .8% 1.0% .8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.1%
Not American Citizen 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 3.0% 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.6% 3.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 1. Faculty By Race
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
African‐American not Hispanic 8.4% 6.8% 8.4% 7.6% 8.7% 7.8% 8.3% 8.3% 7.6% 7.7% 8.1% 7.3% 7.8% 6.9% 8.7%
African‐American Hispanic .3% .4% .4% 2.2% .1% .2% .3% .4% .4% .2% .1% .1% .2% .1% .2%
Hispanic not African‐American 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.1%
Native American .6% .7% .8% .6% .6% .6% .7% .8% .6% 1.0% 1.0% .8% .7% .9% 1.0%
Asian American 1.8% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.4% 2.6% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 4.3% 4.9% 4.7%
Pacific Islander American .3% .2% .3% .4% .6% .3% .5% .5% .6% .3% .1% .2% .4% .3% .4%
Other .5% .6% .7% .7% .8% 1.0% .8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.1%
Not American Citizen 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 3.0% 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.6% 3.2%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
Chart 1A. Faculty By Race (White Non‐Hispanic Eliminated)
![Page 31: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Accredited 83.6% 84.9% 83.5% 83.4% 82.0% 83.0% 81.8% 79.5% 81.7% 79.4% 78.5% 79.0% 77.8% 79.2% 77.6%
Nonaccredited 90.2% 88.8% 88.0% 83.9% 87.5% 85.7% 83.9% 88.1% 77.6% 86.4% 87.3% 87.0% 85.0% 83.7% 82.6%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
Chart 2. Faculty By Race By Accreditation Status (White Non‐Hispanic Only)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Private 82.0% 87.4% 81.6% 89.3% 79.5% 79.4% 77.4% 78.3% 73.6% 78.2% 77.1% 79.7% 74.3% 77.2% 75.0%
Public 86.0% 85.8% 85.6% 82.3% 84.6% 84.8% 84.0% 81.8% 82.4% 81.3% 81.3% 81.4% 81.1% 80.9% 79.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 3. Faculty By Race By Control (White Non‐Hispanic Only)
![Page 32: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Research I/Research University Very High ResearchActivity
83.4% 86.6% 83.2% 85.2% 80.3% 80.3% 83.9% 81.5% 82.6% 80.3% 81.4% 81.1% 80.7% 80.3% 80.0%
Research II Doctoral 1 &2/Research UniversityHigh Research Activity, Doctoral Research
University87.8% 89.2% 87.4% 85.0% 86.9% 87.8% 79.8% 77.8% 79.7% 80.3% 78.5% 80.0% 79.0% 82.2% 78.4%
Comprehensive & Liberal Arts/Masters Colleges &Universities, Baccalaureate Colleges
85.3% 83.3% 83.9% 80.2% 84.1% 83.7% 83.5% 85.4% 79.5% 82.6% 82.0% 82.6% 77.7% 75.3% 76.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 4. Faculty By Race By Carnegie Classification (White Non‐Hispanic Only)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Northeast 87.7% 87.6% 86.3% 86.8% 88.4% 87.6% 85.9% 86.7% 81.4% 88.5% 90.1% 88.3% 85.6% 83.6% 82.9%
Midwest 89.5% 89.8% 88.0% 82.9% 86.6% 85.8% 84.5% 83.3% 83.9% 84.1% 83.3% 83.9% 83.6% 83.6% 83.4%
South 80.7% 83.7% 80.3% 84.6% 79.9% 80.7% 78.7% 77.9% 78.5% 77.1% 77.1% 77.2% 74.8% 76.9% 75.8%
West 87.3% 82.5% 90.8% 78.5% 84.9% 86.4% 86.3% 83.1% 80.8% 80.4% 78.4% 79.9% 83.0% 78.6% 74.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
Chart 5. Faculty By Race By Region (White Non‐Hispanic Only)
![Page 33: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Female 34.8% 37.4% 38.6% 40.0% 38.6% 39.6% 40.3% 41.7% 41.8% 41.0% 42.8% 42.3% 43.2% 43.7% 45.3%
Male 65.2% 62.6% 61.4% 60.0% 61.4% 60.4% 59.7% 58.3% 58.2% 59.0% 57.2% 57.7% 56.8% 56.3% 54.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 6. Gender By Year
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Accredited 65.4% 63.2% 61.9% 61.5% 62.0% 60.2% 60.5% 58.4% 58.8% 58.7% 57.7% 58.9% 57.6% 56.9% 55.0%
Nonaccredited 64.8% 61.3% 60.2% 56.1% 59.8% 61.0% 57.8% 57.8% 56.4% 60.2% 55.6% 54.4% 54.7% 54.0% 53.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 7. Gender By Year By Accreditation (Males Only)
![Page 34: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Private 63.8% 61.8% 61.1% 58.4% 58.7% 60.3% 58.8% 58.4% 59.4% 59.8% 57.4% 56.2% 55.1% 55.4% 52.0%
Public 65.5% 62.8% 61.5% 60.4% 62.2% 60.4% 60.0% 58.2% 58.0% 58.8% 57.2% 58.1% 57.4% 56.5% 55.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 8. Gender By Year By Control (Males Only)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Research I/Research University Very High ResearchActivity
65.3% 63.1% 61.7% 62.3% 61.6% 59.2% 58.5% 59.9% 60.3% 59.6% 59.6% 59.7% 59.6% 57.5% 57.3%
Research II Doctoral 1 &2/Research University HighResearch Activity, Doctoral Research University
65.6% 63.0% 62.1% 58.8% 63.9% 63.0% 60.0% 56.2% 57.8% 58.8% 55.7% 57.8% 54.8% 55.6% 52.3%
Comprehensive & Liberal Arts/Masters Colleges &Universities, Baccalaureate Colleges
64.8% 61.8% 60.5% 57.7% 58.6% 58.6% 61.7% 58.4% 55.3% 58.2% 55.3% 53.8% 53.9% 54.2% 53.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 9. Gender By Year By Carnegie Classification (Males Only)
![Page 35: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Northeast 64.4% 62.1% 63.5% 61.7% 63.8% 65.8% 64.3% 65.7% 63.1% 66.8% 61.7% 62.4% 60.7% 61.9% 61.1%
Midwest 64.5% 60.8% 59.4% 58.1% 59.1% 59.0% 58.7% 57.9% 55.9% 57.3% 54.8% 56.5% 56.9% 55.9% 53.0%
South 65.1% 63.7% 62.3% 61.0% 62.4% 60.8% 59.7% 58.9% 59.1% 58.5% 58.2% 57.5% 56.3% 56.4% 53.6%
West 68.0% 64.9% 62.1% 59.4% 61.8% 58.4% 57.8% 52.0% 57.7% 59.6% 56.8% 58.0% 53.5% 51.9% 58.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Chart 10. Gender By Year By Region (Males Only)
![Page 36: Predictors Of Faculty Diversification In Journalism …...Journalism and Mass Communication at the annual conference in San Francisco, Aug. 6-9, 2015. Abstract Based on data gathered](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060419/5f169102a222573ff47e1d18/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Research Universities Very High Research Activity
Research Universities High Research Activity and Doctoral/
Research Universities
Master’s Colleges & Universities and
Baccalaureate Colleges
Accredited Programs
Nonaccredited Programs
Public Institutions
Private Institutions
1999‐2000 67.2% 66.5% 76.7% 75.0% 56.7% 81.6% 49.4% 75.4% 43.1%
2000‐2001 68.8% 70.3% 81.8% 70.4% 64.9% 81.0% 58.7% 77.0% 52.8%
2001‐2002 65.3% 60.6% 66.7% 66.7% 54.6% 74.2% 46.9% 65.7% 47.2%
2002‐2003 62.4% 60.9% 77.8% 63.5% 52.0% 78.9% 44.1% 67.1% 46.3%
2003‐2004 60.7% 62.2% 80.0% 64.8% 52.6% 82.3% 43.0% 70.9% 40.0%
2004‐2005 61.6% 62.2% 81.0% 74.5% 46.7% 79.8% 44.0% 68.7% 45.1%
2005‐2006 63.1% 64.2% 87.2% 71.7% 47.5% 81.5% 46.0% 69.5% 50.0%
2006‐2007 58.2% 57.6% 82.1% 63.5% 41.5% 78.1% 35.2% 65.7% 36.0%
2007‐2008 65.5% 63.8% 81.1% 69.4% 50.7% 78.7% 46.3% 71.4% 43.8%
2008‐2009 60.3% 60.9% 75.7% 67.7% 48.1% 80.2% 38.6% 69.8% 38.0%
2009‐2010 55.4% 55.9% 67.6% 59.4% 47.4% 69.1% 40.0% 62.3% 38.3%
2010‐2011 56.6% 56.0% 70.3% 59.4% 45.9% 66.3% 43.8% 62.8% 37.0%
2011‐2012 58.3% 54.3% 72.1% 56.5% 41.4% 68.1% 38.3% 59.7% 30.1%
2012‐2013 45.4% 49.4% 65.1% 54.1% 35.7% 62.1% 34.2% 54.7% 34.8%
2013‐2014 56.7% 54.8% 65.3% 63.2% 39.4% 72.4% 35.1% 60.3% 35.9%
Appendix: Return Rates for ASJMC Faculty Salary Survey 1999‐2013
Academic Year
Returned Form 2: Individual faculty salary dataReturn Rates
Returned Form 1:
Budgetary data
Returned Form 2:
Individual faculty salary
data